The IWPR directly named the individual as a witness inthe Blaskic case in its Tribunal Update of 7-11February 2000. This is of considerable importance asIWPR named the witness before any of the datesmentioned in the indictments. Most of the indictmentsrelate to 2004. However, the indictment against JosipJovic is for dates in 2000, the earliest being 27November. The IWPR disclosure comes some months priorto that. See it here.

Mirko Klarin, then Senior Editor at IWPR, fullydisclosed the identity in Tribunal Update of 16-21September, 2002. Klarin specifically states the nameof the witness and that he had testified in the closedsession in the Blaskic trial, and something of thenature of that testimony. See it here.

No action has been taken by ICTY prosecutors againstIWPR or their journalists - or indeed JUSTWATCH - fornaming the protected witness.

This raises the most serious questions. How is it thataction was taken against Croatian journalists and notIWPR?

The Croatian journalists have a strong public interestdefence: A recent article in the New York Times quotesProsecution documents as saying the witness is "ahigh-ranking politician who holds important stateresponsibilities." . If such a politician in theUnited Kingdom gave secret testimony at a UN courtagainst a British soldier the public would certainlydemand to know what was said and by whom. No doubtthe same would apply in the United States. Nobodywould accept protective measures. Why should it bedifferent in Croatia? Further, the public interestcase is strengthened by the fact that in the Blaskiccase, a miscarriage of justice occurred.

No doubt the Croatian journalists concerned hadpolitical motives for publishing what they did. Thatis freedom of speech.

IWPR has presented no explanation or defencewhatsoever for revealing the identity of the witness.Yet somehow, they have got away with it. And continueto do so - their reports have been on their websitefor years. There is no clear public interest case fortheir revealing it.

IWPR is sympathetic to the ICTY. It also is Londonbased, and part funded by the British taxpayer. Nodoubt that is connected to their apparent immunityfrom indictment.

Journalists are entitled to be pro ICTY. However,that does not mean the ICTY should consider them abovethe law. Why should these Croatian journalists facecriminal charges and the strain and stress that mustcreate in their lives, whilst IWPR and its journalistsdo not have to face that - despite naming the witnessprior to the dates of the mentioned in the indictmentsof the Croats?

It is clear double standards, and the ICTY isoperating on a political basis; those that criticiseit face prosecution for repeating the name of aprotected witness, but those uncritical or evensupportive of the ICTY can do the same thing withimpunity.And what of IWPR? Their latest reports on thesituation shamefully fail to mention that theythemselves named the witness repeatedly. What kind ofjournalism is that? IWPR’s readers are fully entitledto that information - yet it was denied to them. Giventhat the taxpayer helps pay their wages, it is all themore appalling. IWPR’s silence is a disgrace.

Of course, given that the witness himself has admittedfor years that he was a witness, the whole issue isridiculous. But that has not stopped the UNprosecutors, led by the much criticised Carla delPonte, whose double standards will no doubt berevealed in excruciating detail by the defendants.